Ananthakrishnan, Ashwin N.

Abstract Introduction Despite regulatory mandates for advanced therapy (AT) washout periods of up to 5 drug half-lives before enrolling patients in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) trials, the evidence base for these requirements is largely empirical, and whether shorter intervals independently increase the risk of serious infections in real-world practice remains unknown. Methods Using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, we identified adult patients with IBD who initiated a new AT (tumor necrosis factor antagonists, vedolizumab, interleukin (IL)-12/23 or IL-23 antagonists, or Janus kinase inhibitors) between 2018 and 2023 using a class-specific new-user design. We examined whether exposure to AT within the preceding 12 months (vs no exposure to AT within that window) and timing of discontinuation (≤1 month, 1-<3 months, or 3-12 months) were associated with risk of serious infections using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results Among 21 564 AT initiators (47 ± 18 years; 52% female; 57% Crohn’s disease), 7490 (34.7%) had AT exposure within the preceding 12 months. Over a mean follow-up of 1.6 ± 0.9 y, 1955 (9.1%) experienced a serious infection. Prior AT exposure was associated with higher infection risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.33), consistent in inverse probability of treatment-weighted analyses (HR, 1.20 [1.06-1.37]). Among patients with prior exposure, timing of discontinuation was not associated with infection risk (HR, 1.17 [0.95-1.43] for ≤1 month vs 3-12 months; HR, 1.01 [0.83-1.22] for 1-<3 months), with no dose–response relationship on continuous modeling. Discussion AT exposure within the preceding 12 months is associated with modestly higher risk of serious infection after initiating a new AT in IBD, but timing of discontinuation does not independently influence this risk.

Importance With the availability of multiple classes of advanced therapies for the treatment of Crohn disease (CD), understanding the comparative safety of different therapies can inform treatment positioning. Objective To compare the risk of serious infections, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with different advanced therapies in patients with CD. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2022, with a mean (SD) follow-up of 26.9 (2.4) months until July 1, 2024. Using an administrative claims database (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), commercially insured patients with CD, who initiated treatment with tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin agents (vedolizumab), interleukin (IL)-12/23p40 antagonists (ustekinumab), IL-23p19 antagonists (primarily risankizumab), or Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib) between 2016 and 2022 and had follow-up for at least 1 year before and after treatment initiation, were included. Exposure TNF antagonists vs anti-integrin agents (vedolizumab) vs IL-12/23p40 antagonists (ustekinumab) vs IL-23p19 antagonists (risankizumab) vs Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib). Main Outcomes and Measures The risk of serious infections, VTE, and MACE was compared with various advanced therapies through multinomial propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting, with propensity scores estimated through generalized boosted models, accounting for disease characteristics, health care utilization, comorbidities, and prior and concomitant medications, and through competing risk of mortality. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for multiple treatment comparisons were calculated. Results This study included 12 245 patients with CD (mean [SD] age, 46.5 [17.5] years; 6642 females [54.2%]), who were treated with TNF antagonists (n = 5274), vedolizumab (n = 2716), ustekinumab (n = 3544), risankizumab (n = 559), or upadacitinib (n = 152). Serious infection incidence rates ranged from 5.46 (95% CI, 4.86-6.07) to 9.02 (95% CI, 6.38-11.89) per 100 person-years across therapies. After adjusting for confounding variables, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of serious infections across different agents, including between risankizumab and ustekinumab (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.78-1.67]), risankizumab and TNF antagonists (HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.68-1.47]), or ustekinumab and TNF antagonists (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.74-1.04]). The incidence of VTE (incidence rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.71-1.10] to 2.33 [95% CI, 1.06-3.82] per 100 person-years) and MACE (0.68 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85] to 1.49 [95% CI, 0.43-2.76] per 100 person-years) was low, without any significant differences across agents. Conclusions and Relevance In this comparative effectiveness research study of patients with CD, no significant differences in the risks of serious infections, VTE, or MACE across various advanced therapies were found. These findings support clinical decision-making on choice of advanced therapies for most individual patients with CD to be driven primarily by comparative treatment effectiveness rather than driven by concerns of serious adverse events.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the safety of advanced therapies in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: Using an administrative claims database (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), we identified patients with UC who initiated treatment with tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin agents, anti-interleukin, Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK), or sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor modulators between 2016 and 2022 and had followed up for at least 1 year before and after treatment initiation. We compared the risk of serious infections, venous thromboembolism, and major adverse cardiovascular events through multinomial propensity score-based inverse probability weighting, with propensity scores estimated through generalized boosted models that accounted for disease characteristics, healthcare utilization, comorbidities, and previous and concomitant medications, and the competing risk of mortality. We calculated cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals for multiple treatment comparisons. RESULTS: We included 9,430 patients with UC treated with TNF antagonists (n = 4,111), anti-integrins (n = 3,165), anti-ILs (n = 1,342), JAK inhibitors (n = 701), or sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor modulators (n = 111), followed over median 27 months. After adjusting for confounding variables, anti-ILs were associated with a lower risk of serious infections compared with TNF antagonists (HR, 0.66 [95% confidence interval, 0.51–0.87]) and anti-integrins (HR, 0.75 [0.57–0.98]). JAK inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of serious infections compared with TNF antagonists (HR, 0.66 [0.46–0.94]). The incidence of venous thromboembolism (incidence rate, 1.4–2.0 per 100 py) and major adverse cardiovascular event (0.5–1.0 per 100 py) was very low, without any significant differences across agents. DISCUSSION: In a real-world cohort of patients with UC, anti-ILs and JAK inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of serious infections and may offer net benefit, especially in patients with previous TNF antagonist exposure.

ABSTRACT Background Advanced therapies increase the risk of shingles in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Aim To compare the risk of shingles with different advanced therapies in patients with IBD. Methods We identified patients with IBD who initiated treatment with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, anti‐integrins, anti‐interleukins, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, or sphingosine‐1 phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators between 2016 and 2022 and had follow‐up for at least 1 year before and after treatment initiation. We estimated the incidence rate (IR per 100 person‐year [PY]) of shingles (overall and complicated) and compared the risk with different advanced therapies through multinomial propensity score‐based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), with propensity scores estimated through generalised boosted models, accounting for disease characteristics, healthcare utilisation, comorbidities and prior and concomitant medications. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for multiple treatment comparisons. Results We included 21,675 patients followed over 27 months. IRs per 100 PY of shingles and complicated shingles were: TNF antagonists 1.0/0.3, anti‐integrin agents 1.4/0.4, anti‐interleukins 1.2/0.5, JAK inhibitors 3.3/0.9 and S1PR modulators 2.0/1.0. After adjusting for confounding variables, JAK inhibitors were associated with higher risks of shingles than TNF antagonists (HR 2.19; 1.28–3.75), anti‐integrins (HR 1.87; 1.12–3.14) and anti‐interleukins (HR 1.70; 0.98–2.96). Conclusions JAK inhibitors were associated with 1.7–2.2‐fold higher risk of shingles than other advanced therapies.

Introduction Targeted immunomodulators (eg, advanced therapies) effectively achieve symptomatic remission in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, ~25%–50% of patients with IBD achieving symptomatic remission with an advanced therapy may have continued endoscopically/radiologically active bowel inflammation, and it is uncertain whether changing alternative advanced therapies in asymptomatic patients with IBD will reduce bowel inflammation and achieve durable deep remission. Methods and analysis The QUality Outcomes Treating IBD to Target (QUOTIENT) study is an open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial that aims to compare the efficacy and safety of switching to an alternative advanced therapy targeting endoscopic/radiological remission (treat-to-target) versus continuing the initial, or index, advanced therapy, in asymptomatic patients with IBD with moderate-to-severe endoscopic/radiological bowel inflammation. Enrolment is planned for ~250 participants in Canada/USA, randomised 1:1 to switching to alternative advanced therapy or continuing index advanced therapy, and then followed 104 weeks within routine clinical practice. Patient-reported outcomes measure efficacy and quality of life/treatment burden/safety. Primary endpoint is the time from randomisation to treatment failure. Ethics and dissemination The study is conducted in compliance with the protocol, ICH Good Clinical Practice, applicable regulatory requirements and appropriate review boards/independent ethics committees (approval numbers: Pro00077486; Pro00061437; STUDY00002062; 22-004171; i22-01269; IRB22-0890; IRB_00154397; 2000032384; SHIRB#2022.095-2; STUDY00007146; MMC#2024-18; REB#125290; 17784; Pro00142214; 20240660-01H), with documented written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, scientific presentations, and publicly available Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) websites, including lay summaries. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation Education, Support, and Advocacy Department, and our patient advocacy stakeholder, will develop educational and marketing resources to communicate findings to a broad audience (>250 000 patients/caregivers/healthcare professionals). Trial registration number NCT05230173 .

Data indicate that earlier initiation of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF-α) biologic medicines may prevent progression to irreversible bowel damage and improve outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly Crohn’s disease. However, the high cost of such therapies may restrict access and prevent timely treatment of IBD. Biosimilar anti-TNF-α medicines may represent a valuable opportunity for cost savings and optimized patient outcomes by improving access to advanced therapies and allowing earlier anti-TNF-α treatment initiation. Biosimilar anti-TNF-α medicines have been shown to offer consistent therapeutic outcomes to their reference medicines, yet despite entering the IBD treatment armamentarium over 10 years ago, their implementation in clinical practice remains suboptimal. Factors limiting the ‘real’ use of biosimilar anti-TNF-α medicines may include an ongoing lack of understanding and acceptance of biosimilars by both healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients, as well as systemic factors such as formulary decisions outside of the control of the prescriber. In this review, an expert panel of gastroenterologists discusses HCP-level considerations to improve biosimilar anti-TNF-α utilization in IBD in order to support early anti-TNF-α initiation and maximize patient outcomes.

Summary Background There are inconsistencies in the results of the studies investigating the association between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and lymphoma. Aims The aim of this study is to systematically appraise the risk of lymphoma development in patients with IBD. Methods We searched Embase, PubMed and Scopus from inception to 30 April 2024 to identify population‐based cohort studies that evaluated the risk of lymphoma in patients with IBD in comparison with those without IBD. We carried out random‐effects meta‐analyses and estimated pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results We identified 23 eligible studies reporting 2078 lymphoma events in 656,731 patients with IBD. Patients with IBD had 30% higher odds of lymphoma (RR = 1.30 [95% CI: 1.21–1.40]). The risk of developing both Hodgkin's lymphoma (nine studies, RR = 1.29 [95% CI: 1.06–1.53]) and non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma (16 studies, RR = 1.31 [95% CI: 1.20–1.42]) was increased in patients with IBD (p for interaction = 0.881). The increased risk of lymphoma was observed in both Crohn's disease (17 studies, RR = 1.54 [95% CI: 1.27–1.80]) and ulcerative colitis (20 studies, RR = 1.22 [95% CI: 1.09–1.35]) (p for interaction = 0.026). Meta‐regression demonstrated that mean age of patients, study year, mean study follow‐up duration, and percentages of immunomodulators and biologics use did not influence study outcome. Conclusions The risk of lymphoma is only modestly increased in patients with IBD, with Crohn's disease having a slightly higher risk than ulcerative colitis. In IBD, there appears to be no difference between the risks of Hodgkin's and non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Importance The clinical effects of risankizumab (a monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the p19 subunit of IL-23) for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are unknown. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of risankizumab when administered as an induction and a maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis. Design, Setting, and Participants Two phase 3 randomized clinical trials were conducted. The induction trial was conducted at 261 clinical centers (in 41 countries) and enrolled 977 patients from November 5, 2020, to August 4, 2022 (final follow-up on May 16, 2023). The maintenance trial was conducted at 238 clinical centers (in 37 countries) and enrolled 754 patients from August 28, 2018, to March 30, 2022 (final follow-up on April 11, 2023). Eligible patients had moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis; a history of intolerance or inadequate response to 1 or more conventional therapies, advanced therapies, or both types of therapies; and no prior exposure to risankizumab. Interventions For the induction trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 1200 mg of risankizumab or placebo administered intravenously at weeks 0, 4, and 8. For the maintenance trial, patients with a clinical response (determined using the adapted Mayo score) after intravenous treatment with risankizumab were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous treatment with 180 mg or 360 mg of risankizumab or placebo (no longer receiving risankizumab) every 8 weeks for 52 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was clinical remission (stool frequency score ≤1 and not greater than baseline, rectal bleeding score of 0, and endoscopic subscore ≤1 without friability) at week 12 for the induction trial and at week 52 for the maintenance trial. Results Among the 975 patients analyzed in the induction trial (aged 42.1 [SD, 13.8] years; 586/973 [60.1%] were male; and 677 [69.6%] were White), the clinical remission rates at week 12 were 132/650 (20.3%) for 1200 mg of risankizumab and 20/325 (6.2%) for placebo (adjusted between-group difference, 14.0% [95% CI, 10.0%-18.0%], P < .001). Among the 548 patients analyzed in the maintenance trial (aged 40.9 [SD, 14.0] years; 313 [57.1%] were male; and 407 [74.3%] were White), the clinical remission rates at week 52 were 72/179 (40.2%) for 180 mg of risankizumab, 70/186 (37.6%) for 360 mg of risankizumab, and 46/183 (25.1%) for placebo (adjusted between-group difference for 180 mg of risankizumab vs placebo, 16.3% [97.5% CI, 6.1%-26.6%], P < .001; adjusted between-group difference for 360 mg of risankizumab vs placebo, 14.2% [97.5% CI, 4.0%-24.5%], P = .002). No new safety risks were detected in the treatment groups. Conclusion and Relevance Compared with placebo, risankizumab improved clinical remission rates in an induction trial and in a maintenance trial for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Further study is needed to identify benefits beyond the 52-week follow-up. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03398148 and NCT03398135

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–associated peripheral spondyloarthritis (pSpA) decreases quality of life and remains poorly understood. Given the prevalence of this condition and its negative impact, it is surprising that evidence-based disease definitions and diagnostic strategies are lacking. This systematic review summarizes available data to facilitate development and validation of diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, and imaging indices specific to this condition. Methods A literature search was conducted. Consensus or classification criteria, case series, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials related to diagnosis were included. Results A total of 44 studies reporting data on approximately 1500 patients with pSpA were eligible for analysis. Data quality across studies was only graded as fair to good. Due to large heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible. The majority of studies incorporated patient-reported outcomes and a physical examination. A total of 13 studies proposed or validated screening tools, consensus, classification, or consensus criteria. A total of 28 studies assessed the role of laboratory tests, none of which were considered sufficiently accurate for use in diagnosis. A total of 17 studies assessed the role of imaging, with the available literature insufficient to fully endorse any imaging modality as a robust diagnostic tool. Conclusions This review highlights existing inconsistency and lack of a clear diagnostic approach for IBD-associated pSpA. Given the absence of an evidence-based approach, a combination of existing criteria and physician assessment should be utilized. To address this issue comprehensively, our future efforts will be directed toward pursuit of a multidisciplinary approach aimed at standardizing evaluation and diagnosis of IBD-associated pSpA.